United States v. Unzeuta, No. 509
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HUGHES |
| Citation | 74 L.Ed. 761,50 S.Ct. 284,281 U.S. 138 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. UNZEUTA |
| Docket Number | No. 509 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1930 |
v.
UNZEUTA.
Page 139
The Attorney General and Mr. Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 139 intentionally omitted]
Page 140
Mr. Allen G. Fisher, of Chadron, Neb., for appellee.
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent was indicted for murder alleged to have been committed on a freight car on the right of way of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company on the Fort Robinson Military Reservation in Nebraska. He filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the United States upon
Page 141
the ground that the right of way was within the jurisdiction of the state of Nebraska. The District Court sustained the plea, 35 F.(2d) 750, and the Government brings the case here under the Criminal Appeals Act (34 Stat. 1246, U. S. C. tit. 18, § 682 (18 USCA § 682)).
When Nebraska was admitted to the Union, the United States retained all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the territory of Nebraska. Act of April 19, 1864, c. 59, § 4, 13 Stat. 47, 48; Act of February 9, 1867, c. 36, § 2, 14 Stat. 391, 392. By Executive Order of November 14, 1876, a portion of these lands was reserved for the Fort Robinson Military Reservation. In 1885, Congress granted the right of way in question to the Fremont, Elk Horn & Missouri Valley Railroad Company, a Nebraska corporation, 'across and through the Fort Robinson Military Reservation, located in said State of Nebraska, not to interfere with any buildings or improvements thereon, and the location thereof to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War.' Act of January 20, 1885, c. 26, 23 Stat. 284. In 1887, Nebraska ceded to the United States 'the jurisdiction of the State of Nebraska in and over the military reservations known as Fort Niobrara and Fort Robinson' on the following conditions (Laws of Nebraska, 1887, p. 628):
'Provided, That the jurisdiction hereby ceded shall continue no longer than the United States shall own and occupy such military reservations.
'Sec. 2. The said jurisdiction is ceded upon the express condition that the State of Nebraska shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over the said military reservations so far as that all civil process in all cases, and such criminal or other process may issue under the laws or authority of the state of Nebraska against any person or persons charged with crime or misdemeanors committed within said state, may be executed therein in the same way and manner as if such jurisdiction
Page 142
had not been ceded except so far as such process may affect the real and personal property of the United States;
'Provided, That nothing in the foregoing act shall be construed so as to prevent the opening and keeping in repair public roads and highways across and over said reservations.'
When the United States acquires title to lands, which are purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state within which they are situated 'for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-yards, and other needful Buildings' (Const. art. I, § 8), the Federal jurisdiction is exclusive of all State authority. With reference to land otherwise acquired, this court said in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 539, 541, 5 S. Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264, that a different rule applies; that is, that the land and the buildings erected thereon for the uses of the national government will be free from any such interference and jurisdiction of the state as would impair their effective use for the purposes for which the property was acquired. When, in such cases, a state cedes jurisdiction to the United States, the state may impose conditions which are not inconsistent with the carrying out of the purpose of the acquisition. Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, supra; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U. S. 542, 5 S. Ct. 1005, 29 L. Ed. 270; Benson v. United States, 146 U. S. 325, 330, 13 S. Ct. 60, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coso Energy Developers v. County of Inyo, No. E034051.
..."to the extent that they may lawfully be prescribed, determine the extent of the Federal jurisdiction." (United States v. Unzeuta (1930) 281 U.S. 138, 142, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761.) Thus, in ceding jurisdiction to the United States, a state may reserve to itself the power to regulate or ......
-
Atlantic Marine Corps Commun. v. Onslow County, Nc, No. 7:06-CV-35-H.
...cession, to the extent that they may lawfully be prescribed, determine the extent of the Federal jurisdiction." United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761 (1930) Page 756 citations omitted).11 The question presented here is whether a public/private partnership o......
-
Abbay v. Aurora Pump Co., 62399-1-I
...consistent with the federal governmental purpose for which the property was acquired. James, 302 U.S. at 147; United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761 (1930); Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439, 451, 49 S.Ct. 227, 73 L.Ed. 447 (1929). And where the fede......
-
Abbay v. Aurora Pump Co., No. 62399-1-I
...with the federal governmental purpose for which the property was acquired.Page 35James, 302 U.S. at 147; United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142, 50 S. Ct. 284, 74 L. Ed. 761 (1930); Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439, 451, 49 S. Ct. 227, 73 L. Ed. 447 (1929). And where the feder......
-
Coso Energy Developers v. County of Inyo, No. E034051.
..."to the extent that they may lawfully be prescribed, determine the extent of the Federal jurisdiction." (United States v. Unzeuta (1930) 281 U.S. 138, 142, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761.) Thus, in ceding jurisdiction to the United States, a state may reserve to itself the power to regulate or ......
-
Atlantic Marine Corps Commun. v. Onslow County, Nc, No. 7:06-CV-35-H.
...cession, to the extent that they may lawfully be prescribed, determine the extent of the Federal jurisdiction." United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761 (1930) Page 756 citations omitted).11 The question presented here is whether a public/private partnership o......
-
North Dakota v. United States, No. 81-773
...to engage in that formality if this Court holds that revocation is authorized. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. 16. Cf. United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142-143, 50 S.Ct. 284, 285, 74 L.Ed. 761 (1930) (State may not revoke its consent to exercise of jurisdiction by the United States). 17. Althou......
-
v. State of Minnesota, Nos. 254 and 255
...* * *.' 5 Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 532, 533, 5 S.Ct. 995, 999—1000, 29 L.Ed. 264; United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761; Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652, 656, 50 S.Ct. 455, 456—458, 74 L.Ed. 1091; Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. ......